You have it correct. What you don't quite get is the "result" is called that even before it is sent to a cruncher's computer. At that point the state of the result is "ready to send" When it comes back the state gets changed, completed, error, time out, etc. When the wingman's result comes back the validator is notified and changes the state(s) again or it creates another result to be sent if inconclusive.

In most English speaking countries a "result" is indeed what comes after something. At Berkeley a result in a duplicate of a work unit, and it is called a result before it is sent, while it is out in the field, and after it comes home.

So who do you want to alienate? A lot of small crunchers and let the large crunchers hog the bandwidth/time slots, or a few big crunchers by letting everybody have an equal chunk of bandwidth/time slots.

Edited (note to self, don't forget to proof read before posting)

I suppose you are talking to me? I didn't know I had implied alienating anyone. I think the time and bandwidth would be best served by equal bandwidth and time more than letting one 'class' dominate the connections.

Well, you or anyone else with a "fix" for a finite resource, bandwidth.
You had said" ...the number of users fighting over spots makes it more of less a dog fight for the first position that opens up." I agree.

I think this is going to be true at any percentage of bandwidth or practical amount of bandwidth and judging from previous posts any limit artificially imposed by the S@H staff is going to alienate somebody.

So, does the staff lean towards the big crunchers (more efficient use of band width/less overhead with fewer connections doing larger downloads) or the smaller crunchers (everybody gets a little bit but with less efficient use of
bandwidth), or just let the dogfight continue?

"I think the time and bandwidth would be best served by equal bandwidth and time more than letting one 'class' dominate the connections." BeNt

This favors the "small" cruncher over the "large cruncher", but there are people that could say I'm on the little end of the large crunchers. We haven't defined which is which yet. Now, I consider myself a small cruncher, but any fix the staff comes up with is OK with me because the project is more important than the individual cruncher.

That said, logically I'd go for the large cruncher resolution; best return on resources for the project.

I, as a big cruncher.....or a donator....or a memeber of the clan of the green star......gets no more consideration by the scheduler when I make contact.

Other than by the fact that I have 8 rigs running Seti against some that have only 1.

So, there is nothing to support the supposition that anybody is getting preference here. They are not. Every work request is handled the same way, depending on the information Boinc passes on to the scheduler.

I once postured that those with green stars should get a special pass at the gate when making requests for work.

I am actually at a disadvantage right now against the little crunchers.......
Because my rigs can process so much work, and sometimes it is not available, I can't keep them running as well as a dude that has an MMX235 and only wants one WU a day to keep his RAC up.

I have since rescinded that comment, as I realized it was not 'in the Seti way'.
Although it might be an interesting thought.
And might prod some to donate at least $10.00 a year.
But I would NEVER want to see a 'pay to play' system in place here.
That is against the principals of Boinc. Anybody gets to play. You pay with your participation. Enough said on THAT topic. Hope I have made myself clear.

Any and everybody has as much chance to get work as I do....and that's the way it should be.
____________
***************************************
I am still the kittyman.
Accept no imitations.

But, I do get 'thank you' mailing from Berkeley for the donations.
No checks though.
I had a czech try to get through once......but she would not fit in the mailbox.
____________
***************************************
I am still the kittyman.
Accept no imitations.

In most English speaking countries a "result" is indeed what comes after something. At Berkeley a result in a duplicate of a work unit, and it is called a result before it is sent, while it is out in the field, and after it comes home.

[sarcasm=on]
So a "result" is a outcome of the work of splitter process - raw chunks of telescope data?? - not even assigned to particular machine/user ?? - ufff what a mind job...

OK - I need to consult some geographer and linguist specialist, because I thought that Berkeley is in the US, and US is a English speaking country (vast majority)
[sarcasm=off]

Thanks guys for so swift replies.

Cheers

Profi

p.s. I understand of course result state - a "ready to send" state of the "result" is not very intuitive (at least for me)- however it may be caused by DB data flow or sth like that...
____________

If you think I am bad now........I was virtually hell on wheels back then.

Just thinking about "Hell on wheels" Sattler makes me smile, Mark. I am just glad I didn't have to deal with it.
Got any new Kitty images? My wife keeps asking where the Kittyman's latest batch are.

Like you, I am just pleased that we are back up and running, even if not fully out of the woods - Keep crunching

Tom
I will work on it.......

Lori's new Maine Coon brothers have become a couple of big boyz.
They are now less than a year old, and I bet they both go over 15 lbs.
____________
***************************************
I am still the kittyman.
Accept no imitations.